Is It Family or Is It Family or School? School? Getting the Question Right Karl alexander Much research has tried to parse the school’s contribution to children’s learning apart from the family’s and the family’s contribution apart from the school’s as though they were discrete and separable. The 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity report helped launch this agenda, finding in favor of family. In this essay I argue that the framing of the issue as “family versus school” is fundamentally flawed. Rather, family and school (and neighborhood) together shape children’s academic development. I argue that the strong ef- fect associated with school socioeconomic composition in the original report, and stronger still in more re- cent studies, is in fact an expression of family influence: family determines where children live and the schools they attend. But it is a school influence as well. When properties of family, neighborhood, and school overlap, as they do under conditions of extreme neighborhood and school segregation, poor children’s profile has them triply disadvantaged. The same ecological perspective on children’s learning implies that by reduc- ing the degree of overlap across these “overlapping spheres of influence,” school socioeconomic context can function instead to offset family disadvantage. Relevant literatures are reviewed and the concluding section considers the potential of socioeconomic integration at the school level as a policy lever for improving poor children’s educational prospects. Keywords: educational inequality, achievement gap, school socioeconomic integration, school effects, family effects What are the social forces that govern chil- Report), which helped launch this agenda, dren’s academic development? This question found decidedly in favor of family. arguably has been, and remains, the core prob- In this essay, I argue that framing the issue lematic for the sociology of education as a field as “family versus school” asks the wrong ques- of inquiry, with the achievement gap across so- tion. Rather, family and school, along with cial lines a particular focus. In pursuit of an- neighborhood, together shape children’s aca- swers, studies typically attempt to parse the demic development, and in ways that may not school’s contribution to children’s learning always be separable. When we think of family apart from the family’s and the family’s con- resources in support of children’s schooling, it tribution apart from the school’s. Which of is natural to look to the interior of family life— the two has the greater weight? James S. Cole- for example, the family’s material well-being, man’s Equality of Educational Opportunity re- the structural integrity of the family, and the port (Coleman et al. 1966; hereafter Coleman parents’ engagement with their children’s Karl Alexander is director of the Thurgood Marshall Alliance and John Dewey Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. Direct correspondence to: Karl Alexander at [email protected], School of Education, 2800 N. Charles St., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218. is it family or school? 19 learning and their children’s schools. But the down the South’s dual school system, that dif- family’s reach extends beyond the confines of ferences in children’s educational experiences the household. Where children live and the within individual schools counted for more schools they attend also are parental decisions, than did average differences across schools and owing to the deeply entrenched residential (the latter being the report’s perspective), and and school segregation of life in the United that teacher quality seemed to matter some, as States today, the imperatives of family, neigh- did the socioeconomic makeup of a school’s borhood, and school tend to be mutually rein- enrollment, such that poor and minority chil- forcing—privileging those already privileged dren perform better academically in schools and disadvantaging those already disadvan- with a diverse student body. But against the taged. weight of family advantage and disadvantage, these were mere crumbs, and the decades that The coLeman rePorT as BackdroP followed offered little relief from the deep mal- Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s New York Times obit- aise that set in: uary (1995) for his good friend James Coleman began by recounting an incident at the Har- In 1969, Arthur Jensen began his famous pa- vard Faculty Club on the occasion of the 1966 per in the Harvard Educational Review (Jen- release of the Coleman Report. Moynihan tells sen 1969, 2) with the assertion that “Com- us that he was approached by Seymour Martin pensatory Education has been tried and Lipset, another eminent member of the fac- apparently has failed,” following with: “Why ulty, who excitedly pronounced: “You know has there been such uniform failure of com- what Coleman is finding don’t you? . All fam- pensatory education programs wherever ily.” A few years later, Godfrey Hodgson (1975) they have been tried?” (3). introduced his expansive essay on the Cole- In 1972, Frederick Mosteller, a Harvard stat- man Report with the same story: “Hello Pat,” istician, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan pub- Lipset began, “guess what Coleman found? . lished the results of a faculty seminar in schools make no difference, families make the which distinguished academics from sev- difference.” Though shaded differently, both eral disciplines revisited the Coleman Re- renderings convey the large takeaway point at port data, analytic procedures, and conclu- the time of the report’s rollout: in the tug of sions. The result? According to the book’s war between family and school in shaping chil- dust jacket: “This study turned understand- dren’s academic development, family wins. ing of a major area of social policy upside And it is a decisive victory. down, as had no comparable event in the The conclusion that “schools make no dif- history of social science” (Mosteller and ference” was a disheartening revelation for Moynihan 1972). those who believed that poor and minority children suffer under the weight of woefully In 1989, Robert Slavin’s literature review on deficient schools. The Coleman Report was ex- the educational effectiveness of small pected to provide scientific justification for classes concluded that there was little ben- school improvement as the remedy for genera- efit short of one- on- one tutoring. tions of racial injustice. Instead, it implicated Also in 1989, and then updated a decade the private sphere of family life, seeming to later, Eric Hanushek’s (1989, 1997) review of leave little room for school reform as a solu- the evidence on school funding concluded tion. that “variations in school expenditures are Some who were distressed by the report’s not systematically related to variations in message dismissed it on technical grounds. student performance.” Others took what they could from it—for ex- ample, the “news” that school segregation re- In light of such pronouncements, Barbara mained widespread throughout the United Heyns (1978, 186) was moved to elevate educa- States a decade after the Supreme Court struck tion research above economics as the “dismal : 20 the coleman report fifty years later science,” a legacy of the Coleman Report that profoundly insightful. It follows in the social remains with us still. According to Debra ecological tradition of Uri Bronfenbrenner Viadero (2006, 23), writing on the occasion of (1979), but absent the obscure language. For the fortieth anniversary of the report: “What Jessor, children’s development is governed by most people took away from the report . experiences in the three institutional settings was the notion that ‘schools don’t matter.’” they encounter daily, up close and personal: She then followed with a telling quote from family, neighborhood, and school. The re- David Armor, one of the Harvard seminar par- sources available to children in these three set- ticipants: “No one has found a way, on a large- tings, and how they are deployed, combine to scale basis, to overcome the influence of channel youth along different developmental family.” paths, ones that often overlap lines of race, Around the same time, Adam Gamoran and gender, and family background. Daniel Long (2007, 23) credited the report with At a farther remove, but still relevant, are “the seminal finding in U.S. sociology of edu- the broader sociostructural and sociocultural cation.”1 Such acclaim after some forty years is contexts within which family, neighborhood, quite remarkable, and not much has changed and school themselves are embedded. In my over the ensuing decade. The Coleman Report research (for example, Alexander, Entwisle, and the idea that “schools make no difference” and Olson 2014), the background context is continue to be invoked as authoritative, de- deindustrialized Baltimore over the last two spite the following four facts that bear on the decades of the twentieth century into the first family- school tug- of- war: decade of the twenty- first. The Annie Casey Foundation (2010, 2) has characterized this 1. The Coleman Report did not conclude that span of years as a time of “schools make no difference.” 2. Studies since, using more rigorous methods crippling trends and tragic events—the dra- applied to both the same data and to new matic loss of manufacturing jobs and tax data, buttress—indeed strengthen—the re- base, the ruinous riots of 1967 and 1968; the port’s actual conclusions. exodus of first white then African- American, middle class families; the sequential epi- 3. Conclusions from the other studies cited as demics of heroin, crack cocaine, and HIV; the reinforcing the view that schools make no intensified crime and gang activity that fed difference all have been refuted by scholars and feasted off the drug trade; and the activi- of comparable standing. ties of slumlords, property flippers and pred- 4. Pitting family against school as a contest atory lenders.